Haugo v. Great Northern Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1914
• Docket Number: 81912
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 1053

27 N.D. 268

OLE HAUGO v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 6, 1914

Appeal from the District Court of Bottineau County, Burr, J.

Reversed.

Judgment reversed, and judgment entered for defendant notwithstanding the verdict.

Murphy & Duggan, for appellant.

The plaintiff was guilty of such contributory negligence as will preclude a recovery by him, and the court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict. West v Northern P. R. Co. 13 N.D. 221, 100 N.W. 254; Sherlock v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 24 N.D. 40, 138 N.W. 976; Pendroy v. Great Northern R Co. 17 N.D. 445, 117 N.W. 531; Hope v. Great Northern R Co. 19 N.D. 438, 122 N.W. 997.

Where physical evidence conclusively establishes that if plaintiff had looked for the train after he had passed the obstruction he could have seen it, the plaintiff cannot make an issue of fact by stating that he looked but did not see the train. He could have seen it. Powers v. Iowa C. R. Co. Iowa , 136 N.W. 1049; Bloomfield v. Burlington & W. R. Co. 74 Iowa 607, 38 N.W. 431; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Coleman, 97 Ark. 438, 135 S.W. 338; Wilson v. Illinois C. R. Co. 150 Iowa 33, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 687, 129 N.W. 340; Gehring v. Atlantic City R. Co. 75 N.J.L. 490, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 312, 68 A. 61; Schwartz v. Mineral Range R. Co. 153 Mich. 40, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1253, 116 N.W. 540; Knox v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 202 Pa. 504, 52 A. 90; Wickham v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 95 Wis. 23, 69 N.W. 982, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 198; Schmidt v. Missouri P. R. Co. 191 Mo. 215, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 196, 90 S.W. 136; Davis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 424, 88 C. C. A. 488, 159 F. 10; Cowen v. Dietrick, 101 Md. 46, 60 A. 282, 4 Ann. Cas. 292; White v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 147 Wis. 141, 133 N.W. 148; Marshall v. Green Bay & W. R. Co. 125 Wis. 96, 103 N.W. 249; Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. West, 34 Ind.App. 95, 69 N.E. 1017; Blumenthal v. Boston & M. R. Co. 97 Me. 255, 54 A. 747; Peters v. Southern R. Co. 135 Ala. 533, 33 So. 332; Carlson v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 96 Minn. 504, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 349, 113 Am. St. Rep. 655, 105 N.W. 555; Kemp v. Northern P. R. Co. 89 Minn. 139, 94 N.W. 439; Kelsay v. Missouri P. R. Co. 129 Mo. 362, 30 S.W. 339; Lane v. Missouri P. R. Co. 132 Mo. 4, 33 S.W. 645, 1128; Waggoner v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 152 Mo.App. 173, 133 S.W. 68; Meehan v. Great Northern R. Co. 43 Mont. 72, 114 P. 781, 3 N.C. C. A. 556.

The master is not under legal obligation to supervise the details of the work, and is not bound at his peril to inspect tools, etc., defects in which would be just as apparent to the ordinary workman, as they would to him. Koschman v. Ash, 98 Minn. 312, 116 Am. St. Rep. 373, 108 N.W. 514, and cases cited; Brown v. Swift & Co. 91 Neb. 532, 136 N.W. 726; Vanderpool v. Partridge, 79 Neb. 165, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 668, 112 N.W. 318; Wachsmuth v. Shaw Electric Crane Co. 118 Mich. 275, 76 N.W. 497; Longpre v. Big Blackfoot Mill. Co. 38 Mont. 99, 99 P. 131; Lukovski v. Michigan C. R. Co. 164 Mich. 361, 129 N.W. 707; Olson v. Doherty Lumber Co. 102 Wis. 264, 78 N.W. 572; Hathaway v. Illinois C. R. Co. 92 Iowa 337, 60 N.W. 651.

The defendant was not negligent. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Barnes, 166 Ind. 7, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 781, 76 N.E. 629; Sutton v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 98 Wis. 157, 73 N.W. 993; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Hansen, 48 Neb. 232, 66 N.W. 1105; Newhard v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 153 Pa. 417, 19 L.R.A. 563, 26 A. 105; Knox v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 202 Pa. 504, 52 A. 90; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Judah, 65 Kan. 474, 70 P. 346, 12 Am. Neg. Rep. 601; Reading & C. R. Co. v. Ritchie, 102 Pa. 425; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Moffatt, 56 Kan. 667, 44 P. 607, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 554; Goodwin v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 75 Mo. 73; Miller v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 21 S.D. 242, 111 N.W. 553; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Wink, Tex. Civ. App. , 31 S.W. 326; Muster v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 61 Wis. 325, 50 Am. Rep. 141, 21 N.W. 223; Tobias v. Michigan C. R. Co. 103 Mich. 330, 61 N.W. 514; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Kistler, 66 Ohio St. 326, 64 N.E. 130, 12 Am. Neg. Rep. 343; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hague, 54 Kan. 284, 45 Am. St. Rep. 278, 38 P. 257; Childs v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 150 Pa. 73, 24 A. 341; Partlow v. Illinois C. R. Co. 150 Ill. 321, 37 N.E. 663, 51 Ill.App. 597; Pepper v. Southern P. R. Co. 105 Cal. 389, 38 P. 974, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 200.

It is held that failure to hear signals is not contradictory of clear evidence that the signals were given. Payne v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 108 Iowa 188, 78 N.W. 813; Anspach v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 225 Pa. 528, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 382, 72 A. 373; Newhard v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 153 Pa. 417, 19 L.R.A. 563, 26 A. 105; Keiser v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 212 Pa. 409, 108 Am. St. Rep. 872, 61 A. 903; Knox v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 202 Pa. 504, 52 A. 90; Wickham v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 95 Wis. 23, 69 N.W. 982; Bohan v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co. 61 Wis. 391, 21 N.W. 241; Howe v. Northern R. Co. 78 N.J.L. 683, 76 A. 979; Stuart v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. 146 Ky. 127, 142 S.W. 232; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Coleman, 97 Ark. 438, 135 S.W. 338; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. State, 96 Md. 67, 53 A. 672; Cathcart v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 19 Mo.App. 113; Sutton v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 98 Wis. 157, 73 N.W. 993; Evison v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 45 Minn. 370, 11 L.R.A. 434, 48 N.W. 6; Powers v. Iowa C. R. Co. Iowa , 136 N.W. 1049; Bloomfield v. Burlington & W. R. Co. 74 Iowa 607, 38 N.W. 431.

In any event, a failure to give this signal could not in anywise have caused the accident. Mankey v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 14 S.D. 468, 85 N.W. 1013.

It was the duty of plaintiff to look and listen, before approaching the main track to a point of danger, and if by looking and listening he could have known the train was approaching, then it was negligence for him to drive upon the track without doing so, and he cannot recover. Hope v. Great Northern R. Co. 19 N.D. 438, 122 N.W. 997; Pendroy v. Great Northern R. Co. 17 N.D. 433, 117 N.W. 531; West v. Northern P. R. Co. 13 N.D. 221, 100 N.W. 254; Sherlock v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 24 N.D. 40, 138 N.W. 976; Payne v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 108 Iowa 188, 78 N.W. 813, and cases cited.

The train has the right of way, and the train men may presume that travelers are exercising care and prudence, when they have no notice that travelers are careless or ignorant of the approach of the train. Horan v. Boston & M. R. Co. 106 C. C. A. 535, 184 F. 453; Wasmer v. Missouri P. R. Co. 166 Mo.App. 215, 148 S.W. 155; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Summers, 97 C. C. A. 328, 173 F. 358; Morton v. Southern R. Co. 112 Va. 398, 71 S.E. 561.

Weeks & Moum, for respondents.

Where the evidence produced presents an issue of fact, which if determined in plaintiff's favor would entitle him to recover, the case should be submitted to the jury. Where there is some evidence, although slight, the case should be so submitted. The judge has nothing to do with the weight of the testimony. 31 Cyc. 1532; Bickery v. Burton, 6 N.D. 245, 69 N.W. 193; McRea v. Hillsboro Nat. Bank, 6 N.D. 353, 70 N.W. 813; Pirie v. Gillitt, 2 N.D. 255, 50 N.W. 710; Slattery v. Donnelly, 1 N.D. 264, 47 N.W. 375; Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 125, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Pewonka v. Stewart, 13 N.D. 117, 99 N.W. 1080, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 540; Houghton Imp. Co. v. Vavrowski, 19 N.D. 594, 125 N.W. 1024.

Where there was evidence tending to support the complaint, and it was of such character that reasonable, honest men might draw different conclusions, it was sufficient, and should have been submitted to the jury. Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 125, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Hoye v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 62 Wis. 666, 23 N.W. 14; Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 21 L.Ed. 745; Pirie v. Gillitt, 2 N.D. 255, 50 N.W. 710; Williams v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 Dak. 168, 14 N.W. 97; Franz Falk Brewing Co. v. Mielenz Bros. 5 Dak. 136, 37 N.W. 728; Finney v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 Dak. 270, 16 N.W. 500; Knight v. Towles, 6 S.D. 575, 62 N.W. 964; Mattoon v. Fremont, E. & M. Valley R. Co. 6 S.D. 196, 60 N.W. 740; Chicago City R. Co. v. Nelson, 215 Ill. 436, 74 N.E. 458; State v. Johnson, 14 N.D. 288, 103 N.W. 565; Hall v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 60, 111 N.W. 609, 14 Ann. Cas. 960; 29 Cyc. 631; Solberg v. Schlosser, 20 N.D. 307, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1111, 127 N.W. 91; Calloway v. Agar Packing Co. 129 Iowa 1, 104 N.W. 721; Arenschield v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 128 Iowa 677, 105 N.W. 200; O'Neill v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 62 Neb. 358, 60 L.R.A. 443, 86 N.W. 1098; Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 18 N.D. 367, 121 N.W. 830; Johnson v. Southern P. R. Co. 154 Cal. 285, 97 P. 520; Dieckmann v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 145 Iowa 250, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 338, 139 Am. St. Rep. 420, 121 N.W. 676.

One who is required to act suddenly and in the face of imminent danger is not required to use the same degree of care as though he had time for deliberation and the full exercise of his judgment and reasoning faculties. 28 Cyc. 521, and cases cited. Coulter v. Great Northern R. Co. 5 N.D. 568, 67 N.W. 1046; New York, S. & W. R. Co. v. Moore, 45 C. C. A. 21, 105 F. 725; Dougherty v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 20 S.D. 46, 104 N.W. 672; Guggenheim v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 66 Mich. 150, 33 N.W. 161; Union P. R. Co. v. Ruzicka, 65 Neb. 621, 91 N.W. 543; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 427-436; 33 Cyc. 901.

OPINION

BURKE, J.

Plaintiff was injured in a collision with defendant's train, at a grade crossing within the city limits of Bottineau, North...